Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 93 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ Raja Saeed Akram Khan and Ghulam Mustafa Mughal JJ FINANCE DEPARTMENT AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR through Secretary Finance Civil Secretariat Chatter Domail Muzaffarabad and 10 others - - Appellants versus MAHBOOB AHMED AWAN SENIOR TEACHER and 3819 others - - Respondents CA No 53 of 2019 decided on 942019 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 11062018 in Writ Petitions No 1315 of 2012 534 1361 1378 1417 1459 1468 1579 1691 1895 1904 of 2013 146 166 470 707 917 1018 1210 1427 1451 1589 1844 1899 2044 93 2252 of 2014 370 1322 1468 1519 2089 2091 2456 2673 of 2015 267 1208 2082 2331 of 2016 and 594 of 2010) AJK Civil Servants Revised Leave Rules 1983 - - - - - - (Herinafter to be referred as Rules 1983) R 25 - A - - Employees of education department - - Entitlement for conveyance allowance during vacations - - Deduction of conveyance allowance form monthly salary - - Filling of writ petition - - Consolidated judgment - - Jurisdiction - - Maintainability - - Question of - - Whether during summerwinter vacations respondents herein who are admittedly serving in different Government SchoolsColleges where these vacations are observed are entitled to conveyance allowance during these vacations - - Determination - - It is clearly observed that vacation cannot be treated as leave and teaching staff would be deemed as on duty therefore Conveyence Allowance cannot be refuseddeducted from their emoluments without amendment in Rules through some executive order - - Impugned judgment passed by learned High Court therefore does not suffer from any legal infirmity - - Jurisdiction of High Court was barred is devoid of any force for reason that firstly no basic order has been passed by competentdepartmental authority for deduction of Conveyence Allowance and secondly any letter of Finance Department cannot be treated as order of departmental authority for purpose of appeal before AJK ST - - No any final order has been passed regarding deduction of Conveyence Allowance by departmental authority therefore there was no occasion for respondents herein to approach ST - - Writ of mandamus can be issued where a public functionary fails to act in accordance with law and rules - - We have also considered judgment passed by learned FST which is appended with concise statement filed by Mr Abdul Rashid Abbasi Advocate wherein matter has sufficiently been dealt with and teaching staff is declared entitled to Conveyance Allowance during vacations - - One of factors which has been noticed by FST is that summerwinter vacations are not observed by teaching staff at their own free will rather they are on call of Government and can join duty at any time that is why these vacations cannot be treated as leave - - Apex Court of Pakistan refused to grant leave against said judgment of Federal Service Tribunal - - Appeal was dismissed [Pp 98 99] A B C D Sardar Karam Dad Khan Advocate - General for Appellants Ms Abdul Rashid Abbasi Sherzaman Awan Syed Saroosh Gillani Mr Amjad Hameed Siddiqui Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979: ----S. 15— Ejectment Petition—Relationship of Landlord and Tenant—Existence of Bona Fide Sale Agreement—Tenant’s Claim of Purchase—Effect—Maintainability of Rent Proceedings—Concurrent Findings Reversed— Respondent/landlady filed ejectment application alleging petitioner was a tenant under tenancy agreement dated 12.05.2000 and later defaulted in payment of rent—Petitioner claimed he entered into sale agreement dated 13.07.2000 with landlady in the U.S.A., paid substantial amount towards sale consideration, and ceased to be tenant thereafter—Courts below held tenant in default and allowed eviction—Held, where tenant asserts to have purchased premises and enters into possession under sale agreement acknowledged by landlady, relationship of landlord and tenant ceases—Execution of sale agreement and acceptance of sale payments by landlady evident from record, including her affidavit in earlier specific performance suit—Findings of Rent Controller and appellate court that tenancy remained subsisting despite acknowledged sale agreement were legally unsustainable—Rent Controller erred in relying on isolated clause of tenancy agreement ignoring conduct of parties—Eviction proceedings held not maintainable as rights under sale agreement fall outside scope of Rent Controller’s jurisdiction— Ejectment application dismissed; Petition allowed. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908): ----O. VI, R. 14— Pleadings—Power of Attorney Executed Abroad—Mandatory Attestation Requirement—Validity of Proceedings Filed by Incompetent Attorney—Effect— Rent case filed by an attorney based on special power of attorney executed in U.S.A.—Held, such document was not attested by Pakistani Consulate, hence legally invalid—Where power of attorney is unverified and signatures disputed, burden lies on party asserting it to prove its legal validity—Unattested special power of attorney executed abroad is a worthless document having no evidentiary value—Rent proceedings initiated by such unauthorized attorney were incompetent—Filing of lis by incompetent person renders entire proceedings void ab initio—Findings of courts below on this point reversed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Yaseen Siddiqui v. Tehseen Javaid Siddiqui 2003 MLD 319 • Muhammad Maroof Ahsan v. Beach Developers 2011 MLD 36 • Abdul Hameed Khan v. Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan PLD 2004 Karachi 17 (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction—Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan: ----Scope—Findings of Courts Below Based on Erroneous Legal Conclusions—High Court’s Interference— Where findings of courts below are not based on evidence or suffer from legal infirmity, constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 may be invoked even in rent matters—Court may interfere to correct legal errors resulting in miscarriage of justice—Rent Controller’s failure to appreciate binding precedent and misapplication of contract law principles justified High Court’s interference— Cited Cases: • Mst. Mobin Fatima v. Muhammad Yamin PLD 2006 SC 214 • Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed 2011 SCMR 320 • Shameem Akhtar v. Muhammad Rashid PLD 1989 SC 575 • Mst. Azeemun Nisar Begum v. Mst. Rabia Bibi PLD 1991 SC 242 ----Disposition: Petition allowed; Eviction application dismissed. Suit for specific performance remains unaffected.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 30.10.2019 and 09.07.2019 whereby revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed

Summary: Dilawar Khan challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register FIRs under the Copyright Ordinance, 1962, and sought a writ of prohibition against them. His counsel argued that all matters related to offences under the Copyright Ordinance should be addressed under the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 (IPO-Pakistan Act), citing precedents such as Director General, FIA v. Kamran Iqbal, and others (2016 SCMR 447), Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investigating Agency (2017 SCMR 1218), and others to support their position. The Court considered the nature of intellectual property, emphasizing the importance of protecting copyright and related rights for national culture and international economic cooperation. It noted that the IPO-Pakistan Act is a special law, with exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Intellectual Property Organization to handle copyright-related matters. Additionally, the Court highlighted the absence of rules for enforcing the IPO-Pakistan Act, drawing parallels with legal precedents such as Orissa State Pollution Board v. Orient Paper Mills (AIR 2003 SC 1966) to support its interpretation. Regarding the jurisdiction of the FIA, the Court analyzed the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, and emphasized the importance of purposive construction to determine legislative intent. Drawing on legal precedents like Director General, FIA v. Kamran Iqbal (2016 SCMR 447) and Shahbaz-ud-Din Chaudhry v. Director, FIA (1999 YLR 678), the Court concluded that the FIA's jurisdiction extends to offences related to matters concerning the Federal Government, including those under the Copyright Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court referenced recent judgments, including Oxford University Press v. Inayat-ur-Rahman, to affirm the FIA's jurisdiction in copyright infringement cases. It underscored the Federal Government's responsibility to uphold international commitments and address challenges in intellectual property rights enforcement. The Court's ruling emphasized that copyright, being a federal subject, falls within the purview of the Federal Government's authority, thus validating the FIA's jurisdiction in such matters.

Summary: Muhammad Mansha filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction. Some respondents submitted consenting written statements, while others contested the suit. During the proceedings, respondent No. 10, who had previously submitted a consenting written statement, filed an application to summon the petitioner. The petitioner's argument centered on the inadequacy of the verification process, claiming that he was not familiar with the contents of the suit filed on his behalf. Additionally, the petitioner invoked relevant clauses from Chapter I, Part-C of Volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders, particularly emphasizing the requirement for proper verification, especially in land suits. Furthermore, the petitioner's reliance extended to Rule 2 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which outlines the oral examination of parties or companions during court proceedings. This rule was relevant to the petitioner's contention regarding his lack of involvement in the suit's preparation and his subsequent unfamiliarity with its contents. However, the courts dismissed the petitioner's claims, emphasizing that the flawed verification process and the petitioner's disassociation from the suit's contents undermined its validity.